The Petitioner in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education challenged [1] the vote on the school district's proposed annual budget and [2] the election of candidates to the school board.*
After addressing a "procedural matter", Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa turned to the merits of Petitioner's appeal, noting that a petitioner "has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief, citing 8 NYCRR 275.10.
Although the Petitioner asserted that the district made multiple errors in connection with the election, the Commissioner found that she has failed to meet her burden of proving that any of these alleged errors affected the outcome of the election, were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process, or that they demonstrated a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law.
As an example, the Commissioner noted that Petitioner characterizes the school district’s use of a ballot on election day that was different in format than the sample ballot it published on its website as the “capstone to numerous examples of a dereliction of duties.”**
The Commissioner, however, noted that the single example advanced by Petitioner - that "one resident informed her she had made an error in casting her vote intended for [Petitioner] due to confusion about the ballot’s format" - she failed to produce any evidence such as "affidavits or signed statements from district voters, to support her claim."
Opining that "It is well settled that mere speculation as to the existence of irregularities or the effect of irregularities provides an insufficient basis on which to annul election results," the Commissioner concluded that Petitioner "failed to meet her burden of proving that [the school district] committed election irregularities that affected the results of the election or was otherwise negligent in its oversight and execution of the school board election and budget vote.
Similarly, said Commissioner Rosa, Petitioner had not alleged sufficient facts to support removal of the trustee named in her appeal. Citing a number of earlier decisions of Commissioners of Education, Dr. Rosa observed that a school officer or member of a board of education may be removed from office "when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law" citing Education Law §306[1].
To be considered willful, the action of a board member or school officer must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose. Even accepting Petitioner’s allegations concerning the trustee as true, Petitioner "does not allege that [the trustee named] acted with a wrongful purpose.
The Commissioner held that "The appeal must be dismissed and the application for removal must be denied."
* Petitioner was one of five candidates seeking election to the school board and was not elected. She also sought the removal of one of candidates elected to the board.
** While the sample ballot listed candidates vertically, divided into two columns, the actual ballot listed candidates horizontally with an empty box under the name of the first three candidates and a bubble under the names of petitioner and the final candidate.
Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.